6 ms·
I’ve been working with Clojure for the past 8 years, and while I can vouch for it, I wouldn’t say it has _all_ the Lispy goodness of CL: - it lacks a robust de
by hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
I’ve been working with Clojure for the past 8 years, and while I can vouch for it, I wouldn’t say it has _all_ the Lispy goodness of CL:
- it lacks a robust debugger (where you can step, redefine, continue…)
- it uses the GC of the host VM
- can’t save interpreter images
- is designed to be a hosted language, meaning many implementation details are left to the host VM (JVM or JS)
- type checking
- performance
Also, wouldn’t call CL abandonware, since it’s a standardized language. Abandonware by my definition is all the Python 2 or JS code that you can’t run on a current implementation.
- pfdietz 2y agoCL implementations are also under active development. The standard is not, but de facto standard extensions do appear occasionally (PLNs, for example). Most things that would be language extensions in other languages can be done with libraries, though. So there's a set of what amount to de facto standard libraries people use. Too many test frameworks though. :)